I know there are plenty of you Democrat-leaning types that post on this forum, but from what I can tell, you're all at least moderately logical. And decent.
This isn't reflective of the base of your party, right? The majority of the left are not this hateful, right?
posted
I don't think it does, actually. Ann Coulter is pretty popular, after all. I don't think this guy's opinion on the military is nearly as popular among Democrats (percentage-wise, I guess) as Ann Coulter is among Republicans.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hum. Stripped of the hateful rhetoric, the guy is basically saying that he doesn't like to pay taxes to support wars, and he doesn't think joining the military is a moral choice. Especially the first attitude might be fairly common among Democrats. Real, old-style pacifism is a bit rarer, I'll grant you.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Defineteley a fair bit of snark in there, but when you get down to it, I think KoM is fairly close to the mark. Stripped of the invective, he's a pacifist, and he basically thinks servicemen are mercenaries.
I think if you check most Democrats who are agaisnt the war, a lot of them don't like their tax dollars going towards the war, and many if not most would want that money pulled if given the option. Anti-servicemen language is trickier. Frankly I agree with what he's being sarcastic about, who isn't sick of the "I'm all for the troops" language you hear these days? But I don't think you'll hear that much anti-troop language from Democrats unless it's fringe elements. I think the average Democrat thinks the troops who want to be there are misguided and don't really know what is going on, and agrees with the ones who want to come home.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a bit curious how serving their country, protecting their families, and seeing some excitment and adventure translates to the desire to mindlessly kill people in this guy's world. I also take exception to my friends and family being declared morally bankrupt en masse. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume this guy doesn't actually know any servicemen.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm a bit curious how serving their country, protecting their families, and seeing some excitement and adventure translates to the desire to mindlessly kill people in this guy's world.
I've heard told stories of abusive relationships where the guy picks and fights fights in the so-called defense of the lady, but the situation really has more to do with the guy's insecurity and want of imagination. It's not a healthy atmosphere to live in or raise kids in, and I think the relationship between the general citizenry and the military is similar. Granted, being anti-military is less popular than being soft on crime, and I can easily be considered both.
It seems to me that the entire law enforcement industry attracts rubes and mercenaries, from the military through prison guards and lawyers, I see hired guns all the way down.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: Where would we be without the military?
Enough said.
No it's not.
Just because something is necessary doesn't mean nothing should be said about it or that well-meaning, intelligent people can't disagree about the best way to implement it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK. Show of hands! How many of you "I support the military" guys are/have been willing to sign on the line and actually serve your country.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How many of you "I support the military" guys are/have been willing to sign on the line and actually serve your country.
I don't support the military, but I'd be willing to serve. I'm physically fine, but I imagine I'd get bounced quickly because I'd see the ordeal like a pap smear, sad and degrading but necessary.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: OK. Show of hands! How many of you "I support the military" guys are/have been willing to sign on the line and actually serve your country.
Total of seven years served, two honorable discharges (I went back for a second round after being out for six months), a few medals, and I cussed out a full bird Colonel (funny story).
Supporting policy is different than supporting the troops. Many are working class, blue collar kids who don't have many other options. That was the case for me. When I joined they didn't promise "money for college". That would have been nice to have something other than the GI Bill.
You can disagree with the war. You can hate the people who are sending them over. But don't hate the troops. They are doing a job that, unless you are wearing a uniform right now, you are not willing to do.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: Where would we be without the military?
Enough said.
No it's not.
Just because something is necessary doesn't mean nothing should be said about it or that well-meaning, intelligent people can't disagree about the best way to implement it.
Absolutely we can discuss it. You can not support the troops. You can hate them. You can protest at their funerals when they come home in a box. That is what is wonderful about this country. That freedom is what these troops and countless in the past have fought and died for.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, troops are currently not getting the sort of medical care they need and some how it's the DEMOCRATS who ate the military?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: Where would we be without the military?
Just ours, or everyone's military?
They have the right to protect their borders and interests just like we do. The Garden of Eden is gone. There are wars. That will never end. Maybe when the buggers invade we can get past our little skirmishes here on Earth. Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Support of the military is not a partisan political issue. The redest state on the map (UT) has the lowest service (read support) participation rate in the Nation.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Absolutely we can discuss it. You can not support the troops. You can hate them. You can protest at their funerals when they come home in a box. That is what is wonderful about this country. That freedom is what these troops and countless in the past have fought and died for.
It's your equation of "discuss it" with "not supporting the troops" as well as funeral protesting (most of which is done by ultra-conservatives, by the way) that I find disturbing.
"Where would we be without the military?", even if true, is not "enough said."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Dude, troops are currently not getting the sort of medical care they need and some how it's the DEMOCRATS who ate the military?
The VA service has never been enough. You are just hearing about it now. They didn't all the sudden go to crap over the last seven years. This is not a Republican or Democrat issue. It is an issue that we all must deal with.
I am reminded of the story of Carlos Hathcock. He was a Marine Sniper in Vietnam. He has the record for most confirmed kills and saved hundreds of US soldiers lives by taking out the enemy. He was seriously injured when his vehicle ran over a mine. With all his service and gallantry, he was discharged just shy of his 20 year mark. This meant, he did not get full pension. That did not happen in the last seven years. That is not the Democrats fault. It is not the Republicans fault. Sometimes it just happens. There are a lot of injustices in the world.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Absolutely we can discuss it. You can not support the troops. You can hate them. You can protest at their funerals when they come home in a box. That is what is wonderful about this country. That freedom is what these troops and countless in the past have fought and died for.
It's your equation of "discuss it" with "not supporting the troops" as well as funeral protesting (most of which is done by ultra-conservatives, by the way) that I find disturbing.
"Where would we be without the military?", even if true, is not "enough said."
Maybe I should have put it in a different paragraph (I never made good grades in English). I have not, nor will I, resort to personal attacks on this or other threads. We can discuss it. That is what I like so much about this forum. We can get into a heated discussion here and laugh together on the begging a question thread.
I knew I would start a poopie-storm when I posted my comment. That was part of the reason I did. Please don't take my error in grammar as a personal attack.
To me, this issue is not Republican vs. Democrat. It is For the Military and Not For the Military. As for me and my house, we support the troops 100%. Just like firefighters and police, they sign up to do a job. Sometimes that job takes them into places that they do not want to be. It doesn't matter, that is their job and they do it. Thank God for that.
Where would we be without the military? Under British rule with Taxation without Representation. Maybe.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know there are some things we must do in order to continue discussion, but it's truly disingenuous to refer to "the military" as if it's a homogenous group that all joined for the same reasons and have the same set of values and beliefs.
People join the military for all sorts of reasons, some admirable, some not. Some because they have no other options, others for the money for college, others because they want adventure and travel, others because it's what their family expects, others because deep down they do want to shoot guns and kill people and blow things up and this is the best way to get to do that.
So yes, there will be mercenary types in there but there are also people like my Dad who truly love their countries and want to serve it, and have passed over other opportunities in the private sector that would have paid a heckuva lot more in order to stay and serve.
And as for my "credentials" as it were, I have never personally served, but my Dad does, my husband was in the reserves, my brother in law a Marine, my Grandfather served in WWII, and I can name countless other cousins and uncles. In my family the men serve overseas, and the women serve at home. And I mean serve - when you're married to a military man your name might not be on the enlistment papers, but you are still serving your country.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most people who object to a military and call soldiers violent and mindless killers. They talk of a world that a military is not needed, and how it is a barbaric through back. I can understand this being a former soldier myself. I agree that war is barbaric, and there is no glory in it. The glory comes from those that know how horrible and meaningless most wars are, but they still sign up to serve.
What ever reason a man or woman signs that paper, they have at least a small understanding of the risk they are taking. They understand that they lose their lives to defend policies they may not agree with. They understand they might not agree 100% with existing government, but they can still die on their word.
It is on the backs of these men and women that people who live in a fantasy world, can protest by burning the flag, speak their mind in public, or spit on the same uniform that gives them the right to do it.
No body hates war more then a soldier. I never looked forward to doing my job under any means, but I knew it had to be done and I was willing to do it, so that hopefully one day my daughter, or my future grand children, might not have to. I did this to insure that my children, and my children's children had the choice to do those silly things like flag burning, or spitting on soldiers.
I joined the military to protect each persons right to argue with me. I have been to other countries were this is not possible and it is not better then the US. I have been to countries controlled by religious ideas, and I understand why our founding fathers (many of them very spiritual) understood the need for separation of church and state.
I have taken human life, I have saved human life, and while I would love nothing more then to leave that in the hands of God, in this world we live it is not a reality we can avoid. Many people out there do not see us Americans as human, and while they are right some times, it does not give them the right to force their ideas on us. In those cases we need a military to protect ourselves, and to prevent unnecessary loss of life.
Violence brings more violence, I understand that. But if we only use as much force as required, or get so good at it, those that use violence as their tool are less likely to want to fight. Persons like that are usually bullies and cowards, and only attack people that they feel can not hurt them. They fear that pain, and because of that people here in the US can voice their opinions of how the world SHOULD be, and live that fantasy. But until every one understands basic human rights, and respects the opinions of others, we will always need a military force of some capacity.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know there are plenty of you Democrat-leaning types that post on this forum, but from what I can tell, you're all at least moderately logical. And decent.
I'm surprised no one commented on what was blatantly a rip at democrats, insinuating that most democrats are NOT logical OR decent.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I let it pass Strider, because I didn't think it worth commenting on. That's also why I originally ignored this:
quote:I think the average Democrat thinks the troops who want to be there are misguided and don't really know what is going on, and agrees with the ones who want to come home.
As a family member of more than one serviceperson, I find it insulting to presume that troops are misguided and too stupid to know what's going on, and that only those that want to go home should be agreed with.
But now, what has been served by me pointing this out? Do you think anyone is really going to change their opinions? Probably not, it's just going to fuel debate.
Then again, this is a discussion board and that's what we're here for. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd just like to point out that "insulting" doesn't equal "false".
Some insulting things are true, and some insulting things may need to be said. (Then again, some other insulting things are just insulting, and nothing more than that.)
Incidently, I don't think soldiers are misguided for joining the military if they feel called to do that. However, I do think the country is miguided in using them as we use them.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: Incidently, I don't think soldiers are misguided for joining the military if they feel called to do that. However, I do think the country is miguided in using them as we use them.
That is the point I was trying to make. You can discuss all day long about why we are there, if we should be there, is it illegal for us to be there, etc. But the troops are going where they are told and are doing what they are told. We don't know the circumstances around their enlistment. We should support the individual soldier.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: Support of the military is not a partisan political issue. The redest state on the map (UT) has the lowest service (read support) participation rate in the Nation.
I've been trying to find out how you know this, would it be possible for you to link whatever study you know of that states this?
edit: Have you considered the fact that a large chunk of the young men in Utah between the ages of 19-25 go serve as missionaries for two years and hence feel an urgency to go to college afterwards rather then give up another 4 years to the military?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: "Where would we be without the military?", even if true, is not "enough said."
It's a nitpick, but I'm going to have to point out that a question cannot be true or false. Only answers to questions can be true or false.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not the exact statistic AT quoted, but here's the percent of residents in each state who are veterans, 2003 data.
Utah's not the lowest. It's the third to lowest. (Counting the District of Columbia, at second to lowest.)
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: edit: Have you considered the fact that a large chunk of the young men in Utah between the ages of 19-25 go serve as missionaries for two years and hence feel an urgency to go to college afterwards rather then give up another 4 years to the military?
What does that have to do with the subject under discussion? The point was that the Utahns feel (presuming here that the quoted statistic is accurate) that they have better things to do than join the military. The nature of these better things is utterly irrelevant.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The trouble with that report doesn't account for point of origin. Being "retired" and honorably discharged form the military, I did not return home. I have seen a large amount of the world and the country and really did not want to go "home" after I got out. A more effective example would be to see enlistment percentages based on states.
The only reason I would question this report is that Texas is 44th, and it seemed like when I was in, you couldn't talk to a person with out finding a Texan near by. It seemed to me it was as high as 1 in 5 were Texas transplants.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: edit: Have you considered the fact that a large chunk of the young men in Utah between the ages of 19-25 go serve as missionaries for two years and hence feel an urgency to go to college afterwards rather then give up another 4 years to the military?
What does that have to do with the subject under discussion? The point was that the Utahn's feel (presuming here that the quoted statistic is accurate) that they have better things to do than join the military. The nature of these better things is utterly irrelevant.
No it isn't. Artemisia said that party allegiance has nothing to do with supporting the troops and cited Utah as an example. Mormon males in Utah have an extremely strong doctrine of service as missionaries at the age of 19 ingrained in their heads. If they do not serve by the age of 25 they are then disqualified from serving as missionaries until they are much older. Marriage and acceptance in society are irrevocably altered by failure to comply if able. Enlistment in the military is by no means compulsory and so one takes precedent over the other. If the church had never traditionally made this demand of young men I would be very confident that enlistment rates in Utah would be average if not above average.
As it is, the difference between Utah and Alaska (who as of 2003 was #1) was a noticeable 7% difference. The margin of error for both states was around 1.5%. 7% though significant, is not THAT much of a difference.
I just don't think Utah is an accurate example of party policy influencing loyalty to the troops. It would be like looking at Pennsylvania in 1776 ignoring the Quaker influence, and instead looking at which political party folks sympathized with and using that to gauge support of our troops then.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, I'm sure people in Utah have very good reasons for not joining the military. People in other states have very good reasons, too.
I spend a lot of time with people in the peace movement. I have yet to meet one that was against the troops or who blamed the people serving. As a matter of fact, I met lots of peace activists who were or had been in the military. I had a great conversation with a marine in full dress and a WWII vet in his wheelchair during a march in D.C> - I wish I could post the picture here.
The "miltary industrial complex", on the other hand, does make a lot of money for people. Often these people have a lot of influence on when and why we send our troops to war. So being "anti-military" makes a certain amount of sense for people interested in promoting peace.
Anti-military is not the same thing as anti-soldier.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: OK. Show of hands! How many of you "I support the military" guys are/have been willing to sign on the line and actually serve your country.
I'm not willing to join the military, but I have served my country. Does that count? I have also served impoverished human beings outside of my country through missionary work. How about that?
I support the individuals in our military. I treat them with respect and gratitude whenever I see them. I am not horribly opposed to the war in Iraq, but I am opposed to the premises under which the war was started, and to the erosion I perceive in our civil liberties caused by the War on Terror. I think Saddam Hussein was a bad guy and everyone is better off with him gone, and I think that pulling out at this stage in the game would be detrimental. But I think there are lots of other bad guys in power, and I'm not sure why Saddam got to the top of that list*--actually, I do: because Dubya wanted to finish what his father started, and take out the guys whose position in power was an embarrassment to Dad. I think we were manipulated in order to bring about this war, and I think preemptive warfare is a terrible precedent and an awful legacy for this administration. I believe this occupation has not been carried out competently. I also believe there were far better targets if we had any interest at all in punishing those countries that harbor terrorists. This administration's actions have made it plain that going after terrorists is an excuse, not a goal.
I've been labeled a liberal here for criticizing this president. And yet I oppose abortion, oppose gun control, favor vouchers, favor the death penalty, favor smaller government, and voted for George H. W. Bush. I also voted for Jeb! the first time he ran in Florida, God forgive me. I came close to attending the U.S. Naval Academy--had the congressional recommendation lined up and assurance that admission would be no problem--before I decided that I really didn't want a military life.
Kerry is the first democratic presidential candidate I ever voted for. I don't think I've become more liberal; I think the republican party has moved away from me.
So what of it, Artemisia Tridentata? You clearly threw that out there to make a point. You wanna make something of it?
*Hell, if we wanted to get rid of bad guys, we should have taken out the Castro brothers. I can assure you that there would have been no insurgency in Cuba. And, like Saddam, that's another situation the US helped cause.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: Where would we be without the military? Under British rule with Taxation without Representation. Maybe.
That seems dubious, not only as a proof of whether we should be forced to support the military with our tax dollars, but as an interpretation of historical events.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: OK. Show of hands! How many of you "I support the military" guys are/have been willing to sign on the line and actually serve your country.
I support the military. I'm willing to serve; that does not, however, mean I intend to volunteer.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: OK. Show of hands! How many of you "I support the military" guys are/have been willing to sign on the line and actually serve your country.
I am not only willing to serve, I did. I served 6 years and was medically discharged under honorable conditions for injuries received in the line of duty.
With that in mind, I also do not agree with the reasons we went to war in Iraq. I do agree we are losing certain rights under the guise of the war on terror. I support our troops, I support a free and stable Iraq. I believe because of the service I put into the country it is my duty to speak these things so the sacrifice our service members and myself put forward is not in vain.
I think it is the duty of all Americans to speak their mind. Even if they fear people will not agree with them, but their voice must be heard. I am not a blind patriot, but I do love my country and I would not want live any where else.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: OK. Show of hands! How many of you "I support the military" guys are/have been willing to sign on the line and actually serve your country.
I'm assuming 'serve your country' = 'join the military'.
In that case, no. Primarily because I don't want to shoot at people or be shot at. (Just to be clear, I'm objecting to the killing, not necessarily the guns.)
That's not ALL that the military is, but it is a part that I don't want to be involved in.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: OK. Show of hands! How many of you "I support the military" guys are/have been willing to sign on the line and actually serve your country.
I'm assuming 'serve your country' = 'join the military'.
In that case, no. Primarily because I don't want to shoot at people or be shot at. (Just to be clear, I'm objecting to the killing, not necessarily the guns.)
That's not ALL that the military is, but it is a part that I don't want to be involved in.
You can serve as I did. As a medic. Under the Geneva Convention, a medic is a non-combatant. They carry a sidearm for patient protection, not as an offensive weapon. There are plenty of non-combatant positions in the military.
Edit: As for the not being shot at part. That can happen anywhere, though more likely to happen in the military.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: OK. Show of hands! How many of you "I support the military" guys are/have been willing to sign on the line and actually serve your country.
I'm assuming 'serve your country' = 'join the military'.
In that case, no. Primarily because I don't want to shoot at people or be shot at. (Just to be clear, I'm objecting to the killing, not necessarily the guns.)
That's not ALL that the military is, but it is a part that I don't want to be involved in.
You can serve as I did. As a medic. Under the Geneva Convention, a medic is a non-combatant. They carry a sidearm for patient protection, not as an offensive weapon. There are plenty of non-combatant positions in the military.
Edit: As for the not being shot at part. That can happen anywhere, though more likely to happen in the military.
Agreed. But I'm fat and slow, so I'm afraid I make far too good a target.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: Where would we be without the military? Under British rule with Taxation without Representation. Maybe.
That seems dubious, not only as a proof of whether we should be forced to support the military with our tax dollars, but as an interpretation of historical events.
What country in history has been able to survive without a military?
If I don't have kids in school, why should I have to pay taxes for schools? If I do not need food stamps, why should I pay taxes for those that do? If I am not going into space, why should I pay taxes for NASA?
Not really a good argument for me. I don't feel we are forced to pay for the military. It just seems part of living in this country.
If that is my interpretation of history, what would have happened? Would Britain have just said, go and be your own country?
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: OK. Show of hands! How many of you "I support the military" guys are/have been willing to sign on the line and actually serve your country.
I'm assuming 'serve your country' = 'join the military'.
In that case, no. Primarily because I don't want to shoot at people or be shot at. (Just to be clear, I'm objecting to the killing, not necessarily the guns.)
That's not ALL that the military is, but it is a part that I don't want to be involved in.
You can serve as I did. As a medic. Under the Geneva Convention, a medic is a non-combatant. They carry a sidearm for patient protection, not as an offensive weapon. There are plenty of non-combatant positions in the military.
Edit: As for the not being shot at part. That can happen anywhere, though more likely to happen in the military.
Agreed. But I'm fat and slow, so I'm afraid I make far too good a target.
I just wanted to make sure people did know there are other options out there. I love to shoot but don't even hunt because it doesn't apeal to me. I did really want to serve though. Being a medic was great. One of the best experiences in my life. Without it, I may have lost one of my children. Learning CPR in the Army let me save my daughter when she nearly drowned at four.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: What country in history has been able to survive without a military?
Lots of countries survive with considerably less of a military than we have. Whether we could is something I don't think we consider as thoughtfully as we might.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the church had never traditionally made this demand of young men I would be very confident that enlistment rates in Utah would be average if not above average.
"If I didn't have to do X, I would join up."
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: OK. Show of hands! How many of you "I support the military" guys are/have been willing to sign on the line and actually serve your country.
I did.
And I am not a Republican, nor do I support this war. Belle was completely right....some of the biggest assholes AND some of the best people I ever met (to paraphrase ) were in the service with me.
You can disagree with a specific mission and still support the military, or at least the soldiers in the service.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. Yes I know about Mormon Missionaries. However, as a returned missionary, and a Viet Nam era veteran, (Who did not support the rational behind the Viet Nam war and still think we were fighting on the wrong side.) and a 30 year Army National Guard NCO (retired) I am personally offended by the Pro-War attitude of many (most) of the Republicans in UT. IMO they do not serve because they are too selfish to put their time where their mouth is 2. Utah is the lowest in enlistments. The reason that it is third from lowest in veterans, is the large number of WWII vets still living. 3. "The Military" takes no position on any war. They are subject to civilian control by law and by practice. That is not just eyewash. It really works. Not even McArthur could do anything else. 4. Fat and slow dosen't cut it as an excuse eather. I had to study for my weight test every time I took it.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
